Project on Unmanned Aircraft in the NAS
Download
1 / 83

Project on Unmanned Aircraft in the NAS Final Review Panel Meeting - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Project on Unmanned Aircraft in the NAS Final Review Panel Meeting Integration of Unmanned Aircraft into the National Airspace System A Project Course by Carnegie Mellon University Dept. of Engineering and Public Policy Dept. of Social and Decision Sciences May 1, 2007 Expert Review Panel

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha

Download Presentation

Project on Unmanned Aircraft in the NAS Final Review Panel Meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Project on Unmanned Aircraft in the NAS

Final Review Panel Meeting


Integration of Unmanned Aircraft into the National Airspace System

A Project Course by

Carnegie Mellon University

Dept. of Engineering and Public Policy

Dept. of Social and Decision Sciences

May 1, 2007


Expert Review Panel

  • Tom Curtin, AUVSI

  • Bret Davis, AUVSI

  • Lexa Garrett, America West Airlines

  • Jim Geibel, GAO

  • David Gerlach, FAA

  • Tom Henricks, Aviation Week

  • Ramon Lopez, Aurora Flight Sciences

  • Edmond Menoche, GAO

  • Rene Rey, FAA

  • Melissa Rudinger, Aircraft Owners & Pilots Assn.

  • James Sizemore, FAA

  • Larry Thomas, GAO

  • Dyke Weatherington, DoD/OSD


Purpose of CMU Project Courses in Technology and Policy

  • Analyze a “real world” policy problem involving technology

  • Combine diverse information and analytic frameworks to derive policy insights

  • Learning objectives:

    • Problem decomposition, structuring and formulation

    • Interdisciplinary problem solving

    • Communication

    • Teamwork


Examples of past project courses


Contributors to our UAS project

  • 20 undergraduates majoring in:

    • Engineering

    • Social Science

    • Business Administration

  • 3 Ph.D. student managers

  • 3 faculty advisors

  • Expert review panel

  • Other experts


Background for this Project

  • Increasing demand for UA

    • Military (many current uses)

    • Civilian (many potential uses)

  • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is developing a roadmap for integrating UA into the NAS

  • A few of the issues to be addressed:

    • Safety and reliability

    • Public acceptability

    • Market viability


Analysis Areas

  • Economics

    • How cost-effective are UA compared to alternative means of providing specific services?

  • Risk, Technology and Standards

    • What are the regulatory implications of different approaches to “equivalent level of safety?”

  • Public Awareness and Perceptions

    • Are risks of UA of greater public concern than risks of manned aircraft?

  • Governance

    • How can the current system for deliberation and decision-making on UA access be improved?


Project Outcomes

  • ~16 person-months of research completed across the four focus areas

  • Economic model of market viability

  • Risk model of fatality implications of UA introduction

  • Better understanding of public awareness & risk perception

  • Actor & “roadblock” analysis yields insight on deliberative process for UA integration

  • Regulatory & policy recommendations


Economics

Team Members:

Nathan Diorio-Toth

Feng Deng

Reiko Baugham

Victoria Morton

Brad Brown

Team Manager:

Ryan Kurlinski

10


Purpose

Assess the market viability of UAS applications using relative cost effectiveness

Assess the effect of various regulatory measures on the market viability of UAS applications

11


Goals

  • Develop UAS cost model

    • Cost components

      • Airframe

      • Communications

      • Insurance

      • Pilot

      • Etc.

  • Apply cost model to chosen applications and alternatives to compare cost

  • Examine sensitivity of overall cost to changes in each cost component

  • Estimate cost implications of different regulatory measures and technology improvements

12


UAS Applications

  • Weather Reconnaissance

    • Alternative:

      • WC-130J Hercules: high-wing, medium range aircraft

  • Pipeline monitoring

    • Alternative:

      • Concentric sensors: pressure sensitive sensors

  • Localized Surveillance

    • Alternative:

      • Traffic Helicopter: e.g. Bell JetRanger

13


Analysis Method

  • Used triangular distributions to assign probable ranges to each input cost

    • From this, generated a Probability Density Function

    • Probability Density Function shows the entire range of possible costs with the associated likelihood of each cost

    • Allows analysis of the most probable cost advantages

14


Importance Analysis

Contribution of uncertainty in each input to uncertainty in total cost

Triangular probability distributions of all input variables

Economic Model


Weather Reconnaissance

Analyzed the use of Aersonde UAS for Weather Reconnaissance vs. the use of the WC-130J Hercules

Aerosonde UAS currently in use for Weather Reconnaissance

Hercules WC-130J currently in use by Keesler Air Force Base

16


Results: Weather Reconnaissance

12u

10u

8u

Probability Density

6u

4u

2u

0

0

100K

200K

300K

400K

500K

600K

700K

Alt Cost-UAS Cost

Probability Density of UAS Cost Advantage

($/flight hour)

17


Results: Weather Reconnaissance

1

0.8

0.6

Importance in Alt Cost-UAS Cost

0.4

0.2

0

Safety Technology Cost

Component costs

Manpower

Cost per gallon

Hours per year

Com-Link Cost

Insurance Rate

Gallons per Hour

Operational lifetime

Alt Cost-UAS Cost Inputs

Importance Analysis of Model Inputs

Mission Hours per Year

Operational Lifetime

Com-Link Cost

18


Results: Weather Reconnaissance

  • Key Results:

    • UAS more cost effective than current manned alternative

    • Most important inputs in determining overall cost effectiveness:

      • Mission hours per year

      • Com link cost

      • Operational lifetime

    • Currently available sense-and-avoid equipment cause significant decrease in cost effectiveness, but does not cause the UAS to be more expensive than the manned alternative

19


Pipeline Monitoring

Analyzed the use of the Aero Environment AeroPuma vs. the use of concentric wire sensors ($6+/m)

Note the difference in monitoring style

UAS monitors using thermal imaging with each pass and relays pertinent leak info to docking stations

Concentric sensors constantly monitor pipeline and relay information


Results: Pipeline Monitoring

  • Key Results:

    • UAS cheaper depending on number in use

    • Important to note difference in monitoring styles between UAS and concentric sensor

    • Important inputs:

      • Relay/Docking station cost

      • Number of UASs in use

21


Localized Surveillance

Application based on the surveillance of a 1km2 area for a short time (~1-3 hours)

Considered the use of a Cyber Defense Systems CyberBUG vs. the use of a traffic helicopter

For model inputs, considered monitoring a large traffic accident over 2 hours

For policy considerations, analyzed the addition of mandated sense-and-avoid hardware to the UAS

22


Results: Localized Surveillance

PDF of Cost per Mission for UAS Compared with Manned Alternative

Probability Density

Note: no meaningful overlap

2000

4000

6000

8000

8000

12K

14K

16K

10K

Cost per Mission ($)

23


Results: Localized Surveillance

PDF of Cost per Mission for UAS Compared with Manned Alternative with High-Range Fixed Cost Variance

Probability Density

Note: still no meaningful overlap

2500

7500

10K

12.5K

20K

22.5K

5000

15K

17.5K

Cost per Mission ($)

24


Results: Localized Surveillance

PDF of Cost per Mission for a Larger UAS Capable of Carrying Sense-and-Avoid Equipment Compared with the Cost of Manned Alternative

Probability Density

Note: Significant overlap indicating that UAS would likely no longer be a viable alternative to manned craft

0

10K

20K

30K

40K

50K

60K

70K

Cost per Mission ($)

25


Results: Localized Surveillance

Missions per Year

Mission Related Costs

Flight Hours Per Mission

Input Importance for Cost Per Mission

Importance of inputs.

Input Costs

26


Results: Localized Surveillance

  • Key Results:

    • UAS less expensive in almost every case

    • Levelized cost for manned more sensitive than to utilization hours & discount rate than cost for unmanned

    • UAS cost effectiveness reduced significantly by requirement for sense-and-avoid hardware

    • Important inputs:

      • Missions per year

      • Discount rate

      • Flight hours per mission

27


Policy Implications

  • Analyzed the effect of the following policies:

    • Mandated insurance premiums

    • Mandated use of A/N hardware

      • (Increased fixed cost)

    • Mandated record-keeping practices

      • (Increased yearly cost)

    • Mandated airframe materials

      • (Increased fixed cost)

    • Mandated minimum amount of safety equipment

      • (Increased fixed cost)

    • Mandated pilot/operator training

28


Policy Implications: Results

  • All policies except mandated sense-and avoid hardware had little effect on the cost advantage of UAS over manned alternative

  • Required sense-and-avoid hardware greatly affects cost-effectiveness, however

    • Localized Surveillance and Pipeline Monitoring would no longer be viable as larger, much more expensive UAS would be necessary

29


Risk, Technologies, & Standards

Team Members:

Samiah Akhtar

Jonathan Cornell

Nicole Hayward

Will Kim

Nick Misek

Doug Robl

Team Manager:

Keith Florig

30


Purpose

  • Derive a risk model to explore how risk is related to UAS numbers, dimensions, and flight zones

  • Research on elements of risk mitigation such as human factors, sense and avoid

  • Exploration of alternative incident reporting systems

Predator

Source: http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/news/PSW_News/2005_09/images/uav.gif


Technology and Risk Outline

  • Goals

  • Risk Modeling

    • Purpose

    • Assumptions & Approach

    • Findings

  • UAS Risk Mitigation


Risk Modeling Purpose

  • Provide a way of modeling that creates some groundwork for future modeling

  • Use model to compare relative risk calculations

  • Pointer to the future, not the answer

  • Points of interest

    • Mid-air vs. single-craft crash

    • Effect of sense and avoid technology

    • UAS to displace manned aircraft

Source: http://www.maximog.com/images/sublevel/uav_left.jpg


Risk Modeling Assumptions

  • Uniform national model

  • Uniform traffic density

  • Uniform ground population density

  • Uniform aircraft per type

  • Appropriate for:

    • VFR traffic

    • Rural, less populated areas

  • NOT Appropriate for:

    • Urban settings

    • Airports

    • High traffic densities


Risk Model


Risk Modeling Approach

Number of midair collisions:

N = total number of aircraft

in defined airspace

ρ = aircraft traffic density

D = diameter of plane

(wingspan)

S = average aircraft speed

P(A) = probability of avoidance

(Used for calibration)

VFR operations only

UAV Picture Source: http://www.evworld.com/press/spider_lion_uav.jpg


Risk Modeling: UAs displacing Manned

Small risk from unmanned at lower extrema

Risk from unmanned at low levels less than decreased risk from manned

Single-craft crashes still present less risk than mid-airs


Risk Modeling: Mid-Air vs. Single-Craft

At some point, manned risk surpasses unmanned risk

At low numbers, sense and avoid has little effect

Single-Craft generally less risk than mid-air


Risk Modeling Conclusions

  • Mid-air collisions generally have more risk than single-craft crashes

  • Displacing small to moderate amounts of manned craft represents decrease in risk

  • Smaller, less reliable UAs can present less risk than larger more reliable manned aircraft

  • For small numbers of UAs in low traffic densities, sense and avoid has small effect


Technology and Risk Outline

  • Goals

  • Risk Modeling

  • UAS Risk Mitigation

    • Human Factors

    • Sense and Avoid


Human Factors Implications

  • Risks - Caused Most Number of Accidents

    • “Sensory Isolation” [McCarley et al]

      • UAS operator does not receive same sensory cues as manned aircraft operator

    • Automation

      • Malfunction of automated components controlled by the UAS operator

    • Operator Hand-Off

      • Issues with handing off control of vehicle from one operator or crew to another


Human Factors Implications

  • Recommendations

    • Training and Procedures

      • Up to date training as new technology advancements arise

      • Ensure that operator has accurate knowledge of automated components within UAS

    • Multimodal displays

      • Prevent sensory isolation

      • Allow for audio, visual and speech control

      • Example: simulated cockpit


Detect, Sense and Avoid

  • Risks

    • Market impact of single fatal collision

    • Lack of standardization among DSA systems


Detect, Sense and Avoid

  • Recommendations

    • Create regulations specific to size, weight, application etc

    • Testing Periods

    • Phased Integration


Technology and Risk Outline

  • Issues

  • Goals

  • Risk Modeling

  • UAS Risk Mitigation

    • Reporting systems


Current Reporting Systems

  • Two Options

    • NTSB Reporting (as required by FAR) - Accident

    • NASA ASRS Voluntary Reporting - Incident

  • Current Implementation

    • NTSB mandates detailed information when:

      • Flight control system malfunction, Illness of crewmember, Turbine Engine Failure, In-flight fire, Mid-air collision or Damage in excess of $25,000 to other property

    • ASRS System is anonymous and does not have any reporting requirements


Reporting Recommendations

  • Initially mandate reporting of all accidents and incidents

  • Re-evaluate strategy after testing period

NTSB

- NTSB information helps FAA to assess standards

- FAA responds with rules for reporting incidents.

- NTSB provides useful information on UAS failures

- UAS responds with improved design and engineering

Communication

Triangle

UAS manufacturers

FAA


Public Awareness & Perceptions

Team Members:

Darian Ghorbi

Jenny Kim

Mark Peterson

Laura Seitz

Patrick Snyder

Team Manager:

Pete Tengtrakul

48


Statement of Purpose

  • Add the element of public perception to the discussions of UAS in the NAS

  • Motivation: the fact that there has never been a formal presentation of public perception on the topic

  • Findings: useful for the creation of regulations and policy implications


Objectives

  • Compare public perceptions of the risks concerning manned and unmanned aircraft

  • Find demographic groups with certain risk and benefit patterns of UAs

  • Research implications of opinion of UAs

  • Create survey to aid in completing objectives


Hypotheses

  • Perceived Risk

    -Manned < Remotely Piloted < Autonomous

  • Ground vs. Air

    -More risk of UAS perceived in air

  • Prior Knowledge vs. Risk Perception

    -Prior knowledge, associate less risk

  • Benefit vs. Risk Perception

    -Higher benefit, lower risk

  • Education vs. Risk Perception

    -Technical education, associate less risk

  • Age vs. Risk Perception

    -Older participants more cautious

  • Frequency of Flight

    -Those that fly frequently, associate less risk


Layout of Survey

  • First Page

    • Provide information about UAS

      • Autonomous

      • Remotely Piloted

    • Gauge previous knowledge

      • Source

  • Last Page

    • Demographics

      • Gender

      • Age

      • Education

      • Frequency of Flight

      • Voting (identify opinions of those that are politically engaged)

      • Pilot


Layout of Survey

  • Application

  • Traffic Monitoring

  • Pipeline Monitoring

  • Disaster Relief

  • Border Patrol

  • Questions

  • Quick Response

  • Benefit

    • Stakeholder

    • Public

  • Risk

    • Ground

    • Air

  • 7 Point Scale

    • 1 - Much Less

    • 4 - Same

    • 7 - Much More

Picture of UAS application

  • Description of UAS

  • Physical Information

  • Current application


Obtaining Surveys

  • Coding: numerical code assigned

  • Screening: data obtained from those under 16 years of age were not counted


Statistical Methods

  • Paired T-tests

    • Across applications

  • ANOVA

    • Significance of mean

  • Regression

  • Correlations

    • Demonstrated the strength of the variables (risk and benefit)


Results:Descriptive Statistics


Perceived Relative Risks Between Remotely Operated vs. Autonomous

Autonomous applications are viewed to have more risk in comparison to remotely operated UAs.


Relative Risks Across Applications

Traffic Monitoring has the highest perceived risk.


Relative Benefit Across Applications

The more risky the public perceived the application, the less benefit they associated with the application.


Relative Perceived Risk to People on Ground vs. Air

There is no difference between risk perceived on ground vs. air. Also, there is no difference between perceived benefit between stakeholders and society.


Demographics and Risk

Those over the age of 65 perceived UAs as least risky and least beneficial; the mean value is insignificant.


Risk Perception Conclusions

  • Unmanned aircraft risk > manned

  • Autonomous risk > Remotely piloted

  • No difference:

    • Risk: Ground vs. Air

    • Benefit: Stakeholders vs. Society

  • 54% heard of UAS

    • Need education programs

    • 78% of those that heard of UAS obtained information from television

    • The more familiar, the more comfortable

  • Traffic Monitoring - higher risk

    • Fear of operating around high population density areas


Impact on Policy

  • Limit flight path/area

  • Limited population density

  • Implement education/outreach programs


Future Insights

  • Limitations:

    • Time, Resources, and Budget

  • Sample

    • National scale-different regions

  • Future Surveys:

    • Compare UAS to other risky technologies

    • Size of aircraft

    • Privacy concerns

    • Economics concerns

    • Lengthened


Governance

Team Members:

Nora Darcher

Norma Espinosa

Scott Fortune

Andrea Fuller

Team Manager:

Leonardo Reyes-Gonzalez

65


Purpose

  • Evaluate current system of governance for UAS integration against principles of good governance

  • Suggest measures that could improve the governance process


Analysis

  • Principles of Good Governance

  • Rules for FAA governance

  • Historical Technologies

  • Actor Interactions

  • Roadblocks

  • Cost and Benefits for each actor


Characteristics of Good Governancehttp://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp


Governance requirements on FAA

  • OMB rule requires FAA standards adoption procedures to have the following:

    • Openness

    • Balance of interest

    • Due process

    • Appeal process

    • Consensus


Historical Analysis

  • How did the governance system handle the introduction of new technologies?

Technology

What We Learned


Actor Analysis

  • Objective:

    • Provide a systematic assessment of the actors involved in integrating UAs into the NAS

  • Process:

    • Identified key actors, examined their goals and looked at problem from each actor’s perspective


Resistant

Neutral

For

Hesitant

Actor Analysis


Roadblock Analysis

  • Objective: prioritize problems inhibiting the integration of UAs

  • Categories

    • Technological

    • Organizational

    • Infrastructural

    • Public Concern


Roadblock Analysis


Roadblock Analysis

# of actors

6

Airspace Access

5

4

Equivalent/Acceptable Level of Safety

3

2

1

Transponders

Data Acquisition

0

Low

High

Complexity


Most obvious needs

  • Defining an equivalent/acceptable level of safety

  • Allowing UAS operations in scarcely-used airspace to facilitate testing and development for civil and commercial applications.

  • Potentially large public concern about UAS safety argues for proactive public involvement in deliberations


Conclusions


Summary of Conclusions

  • Economics

  • Risk, Technologies, and Standards

  • Public Awareness and Perception

  • Governance


Economics

  • Some civil UAS applications seem highly competitive with alternatives

  • Initial policy ought to be tailored to the most commercially viable applications

  • Cost models show that (i) costs are most sensitive to hours of utilization, (ii) safety equipment has modest cost effect, except for small systems using sense and avoid

  • Foreign UAS firms may develop an advantage if they gain airspace first


Risk, Technologies, and Standards

  • For some applications in some classes of airspace, unmanned aircraft result in fewer fatalities than manned aircraft used for the same task

  • Sense and avoid is important only in airspace with significant traffic density

  • Low risk areas could be used for experimentation and testing without posing a high risk to those on the ground or in other aircraft

  • A mandatory incident reporting system has potential to greatly improve both airworthiness and human factors reliability


Public Awareness and Perception

  • All UAS applications surveyed were considered more risky and less beneficial than the manned alternative

  • Traffic monitoring perceived as most risky (likely due to flight over dense population)

  • About half of participants had heard of UAs

  • Those more familiar with UAS technology perceive less risk


Governance

  • Integration problem is more complex than many people realize

  • Incremental approach allows for policy experimentation at low risk (e.g., sparsely populated areas/airspace)

  • Standards need to be established to provide benchmark and incentive for manufacturing

  • Attention to public perception and involvement can greatly influence unfolding of UAS issue


Thank You for Coming!

Questions?


ad
  • Login